Settlement Profile (Approach-I and Approach-II)

In this section settlement profile as obtained from analysis results of Approach-I and Approach-II is
discussed and compared with values obtained from elastic analysis results as shown in Table 4.1

Fig. 4.1 compares the results of settlement profile of raft foundation over soft soil of Approach-I and
Approach-II along section A-A' due to dead load case. Approach-I analysis results in a concave down
profile with settlement value is more at the edge as compared to the value at the center of raft. The
settlement computed at the edge is around -0.9in and at the center is around -0.65in.

Approach-II analysis results in a concave up profile with settlement values are more at the center as
compared to the values at the edge of raft. The settlement computed at the edge is around -1.2in and at
the center is around -1.38in.

The difference between the values of approach-I and approach-II increases as one move from edge to
center, indicative of opposite behavior of settlement. The difference in values in two profiles at edge
and at center is 0.3in and 0.48in respectively. When these results are compared to elastic analysis
results as shown in Table 4.1, one can find a closer match with Approach-II as compared to Approach-I.
The values at edge is -1.27in from elastic analysis for soft soil is quite close to value of -1.2in at same
point obtained from Approach-II analysis. While at center of raft elastic analysis shows a value of -1.58in
as compared to -1.38in calculated through Approach-II analysis. Although the difference increases as
one move from edge to center which is 0.07 in to 0.2in but the fact that settlement at the edge is less
than the settlement at the center remains the same in the both analysis.

Approach-I profile is contrary to Approach-II profile and values obtained from elastic analysis and can be
seen in Fig 4.1. The difference in values between Approach-I and elastic also increases as one move from
edge to center quite appreciably which is approximately 0.3in at the edge and 0.68in at the center.

From Fig 4.2 to Fig 4.6, comparison of Approach-I and Approach-II continues for stiffer consistencies of
soil. As soil gets stiffer, the difference between settlement values getting less and in close agreement
with each other but the shape of profile continues to be concave down for Approach-I, concave up form
Approach-II and values obtained from elastic analysis are always less at edge than values at center. This
shows that effect of SSI is getting less pronounced as soil gets stiffer but the behavior of raft is better
predicted through Approach-II as compared to Approach-I.

The same behavior is observed along section B-B’ for dead load case which can be seen in Fig 4.7 to Fig
4.9. Only three soils (Soft-1, Stiff-1 and Stiff-3) are used to show the behavior at section B-B’ for clarity.

Fig 4.10 shows all the graphs of different soils of Approach-I for dead load case and Fig 4.11 shows the
same for Approach-II. Fig 4.12 and Fig 4.13 illustrates the same behavior for section B-B’ considering
only three soil consistencies.

The same raft was also analyzed for lateral load case and results for section A-A’ and B-B’ is shown from
Fig 4.14 to 4.22. Same behavior was observed as observed in dead load case.
Bending Moment (Approach-I and Approach-II)

In mat foundation design prediction of bending moment is one of the most important parameter to
determine in order to correctly place reinforcement. The raft bending moment was obtained through
Approach-I and Approach-II at section A-A’ (along column line) and section B-B’ (through mid of raft) for
gravity and lateral load cases and compared accordingly. The results are shown through graphs in Fig
4.24 to 4.46.

Fig. 4.24 compares the results of bending moment of raft foundation over soft soil as calculated through
Approach-I and Approach-II along section A-A' due to dead load case. In this analysis positive moments
are defined as moments which cause tension at bottom and negative moment cause tension at the top.
Positive moments are recorded under all columns due to heavy concentrated loads while negative
moments are recorded in regions between columns.

Although settlement profile as discussed in previous section, is quite contrary to each other for both
approaches but in the exterior span regions shape of settlement profile is similar. That is why the
negative moment are recorded in both cases and quite close to each other. Which is why there is no
significant difference between the values of bending moment which are in the range of -35 to -40 kip-ft
/ft.

The interior span is the region where settlement profile differs significantly. In Approach-I due to
concave downward profile a negative bending moment appears in bending moment diagram of order -
25 kip-ft /ft and in Approach-II, concave upward profile produces a small positive bending moment
indicating a flatter region in the middle. The difference in the values of bending moment is quite
appreciable and also due to positive bending moment the reinforcement configuration will be opposite
in the final raft design of Approach-II as compared to Approach-I.

The positive bending moment under exterior columns are same for the both approaches but bending
moment under interior columns are around 60% more recorded in Approach-II as compared to
Approach-I. This illustrates that by using varying modulus of subgrade reaction under raft foundation
will give a profile closer to elastic settlement analysis and thus ultimately produce correct distribution of
bending moment at critical section.

Fig 4.25 to Fig 4.29 shows the bending moment diagram for remaining five soil consistencies. These
graphs indicate a similar pattern as seen for the Soft-1 soil but as the soil get stiffer SSI effect gets
diminished supporting the fact that SSI effect will not be significant in stiffer soils. Beside this one can
observe from the graphs that negative moment starts appearing in Approach-II in interior span region as
soil gets stiffer and eventually become almost equal for Stiff-3 soil to the values obtained from the
Approach-I analysis.

For Section B-B’ the comparison of bending moment of Approach-I and Approach-II considering dead
load case for Soft-1, Stiff-1 and Stiff-3 soils is given in Fig 4.30 to Fig 4.32. In Soft-1 case the negative
bending moment of interior span region as calculated by Approach-I is contrary to positive bending
moment as calculated by Approach-II which greatly affect the final design of raft foundation.

Fig 4.33 shows combines the results of bending moment at section A-A’ for dead load case as calculated
with Approach-I while Fig 4.34 displays the results of Approach-II.
 Approach-I analysis results are highin a concave down profile with settlement value is more at the edge
as compared to the value at the center of raft. The settlement computed at the edge is around -0.9in
and at the center is around -0.65in.

Approach-II analysis results in a concave up profile with settlement values are more at the center as
compared to the values at the edge of raft. The settlement computed at the edge is around -1.2in and at
the center is around -1.38in.

The difference between the values of approach-I and approach-II increases as one move from edge to
center, indicative of opposite behavior of settlement. The difference in values in two profiles at edge
and at center is 0.3in and 0.48in respectively. When these results are compared to elastic analysis
results as shown in Table 4.1, one can find a closer match with Approach-II as compared to Approach-I.
The values at edge is -1.27in from elastic analysis for soft soil is quite close to value of -1.2in at same
point obtained from Approach-II analysis. While at center of raft elastic analysis shows a value of -1.58in
as compared to -1.38in calculated through Approach-II analysis. Although the difference increases as
one move from edge to center which is 0.07 in to 0.2in but the fact that settlement at the edge is less
than the settlement at the center remains the same in the both analysis.

Approach-I profile is contrary to Approach-II profile and values obtained from elastic analysis and can be
seen in Fig 4.1. The difference in values between Approach-I and elastic also increases as one move from
edge to center quite appreciably which is approximately 0.3in at the edge and 0.68in at the center.

From Fig 4.2 to Fig 4.6, comparison of Approach-I and Approach-II continues for stiffer consistencies of
soil. As soil gets stiffer, the difference between settlement values getting less and in close agreement
with each other but the shape of profile continues to be concave down for Approach-I, concave up form
Approach-II and values obtained from elastic analysis are always less at edge than values at center. This
shows that effect of SSI is getting less pronounced as soil gets stiffer but the behavior of raft is better
predicted through Approach-II as compared to Approach-I.

The same behavior is observed along section B-B’ for dead load case which can be seen in Fig 4.7 to Fig
4.9. Only three soils (Soft-1, Stiff-1 and Stiff-3) are used to show the behavior at section B-B’ for clarity.
Fig 4.10 shows all the graphs of different soils of Approach-I for dead load case and Fig 4.11 shows the
same for Approach-II. Fig 4.12 and Fig 4.13 illustrates the same behavior for section B-B’ considering
only three soil consistencies.

The same raft was also analyzed for lateral load case and results for section A-A’ and B-B’ is shown from
Fig 4.14 to 4.22. Same behavior was observed as observed in dead load case.